Copyright © The Ontario Historical Society, 2019 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit(including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can beviewed online.https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/

This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal,Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is topromote and disseminate research.https://www.erudit.org/en/

Document generated on 03/12/2021 9:18 a.m.

Ontario History

A Place Called Bowles’sIn Search of a Historic Site from the War of 1812Guy St-Denis

Volume 111, Number 1, Spring 2019

URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1059966arDOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1059966ar

See table of contents

Publisher(s)The Ontario Historical Society

ISSN0030-2953 (print)2371-4654 (digital)

Explore this journal

Cite this articleSt-Denis, G. (2019). A Place Called Bowles’s: In Search of a Historic Site from theWar of 1812. Ontario History, 111 (1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.7202/1059966ar

Article abstractGeneral Henry Procter’s ignominious retreat at the Battle of Moraviantown in1813 ruined his reputation. At his court martial, a number of pioneer placenames were identified as milestones in his retreat, including a homestead calledBowles’s an important depot for the British where two schooners were scuttled toprevent the Americans from advancing up the Thames River by boat. This articleuses evidence from a variety of original sources to determine the most likelylocation of Bowles’s homestead and, perhaps, two historic shipwrecks from theWar of 1812.

73antiquarians and avocationals

Early in the autumn of 1813, Ameri-can forces under the command of Major General William Henry

Harrison set out from Amherstburg in pursuit of a British and Native army as it retreated through the Upper Canadian wilderness. The chase continued until 5 October 1813, when Major General Henry Procter and the Shawnee warrior chief Tecumseh took up defensive posi-tions and awaited the onslaught. After a brief and futile resistance, the Battle of Moraviantown ended in a spectacular de-feat for the defenders.1 Tecumseh closed with the enemy and died a hero’s death, while Procter took flight and ruined his reputation. In a later bid to redeem his good name, Procter agitated for the court martial he believed would exonerate him

of any wrongdoing. Instead, his behav-iour was found to have been less than ex-emplary.2 It was a bitter pill for a career soldier like Procter, but there was at least one positive outcome. All of the testimo-ny given at his trial was written down and now forms an invaluable record of the disastrous affair he tried to disown.

The minutes of Procter’s court mari-tal proceedings have long been a source of fascination—especially where they discuss the homesteads of early settlers. Apart from their obvious relevance to local history, these pioneer place names also serve as milestones in Procter’s re-treat. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to visualize them within the modern landscape. After experiencing a fair share of frustration in this regard, the author

A Place Called Bowles’sIn Search of a Historic Site from the War of 1812*

by Guy St-Denis

Ontario History / Volume CXI, No. 1 / Spring 2019

*The author wishes to acknowledge Glenn Stott and Carol Hall for their joint effort in producing Taken and Destroyed: The War of 1812 Losses Claims, London and Western Districts, Upper Canada, an invaluable reference and one that was used extensively in the writing of this article.

1 Also known as the Battle of the Thames, this action was fought alongside the Canadian Thames River within a short distance of the Moravian mission at Fairfield and not far from modern Thamesville, Ontario.

2 Procter was found guilty of not taking proper measures for conducting the retreat; not providing security for the ammunition, stores, and provisions; not having occupied a defensible position at Fairfield, or Moraviantown; and not making the military preparations necessary to resist an enemy attack. See: National Archives of the United Kingdom (hereafter NAUK), War Office, Records of the Judge Advocate General, Courts Martial Proceedings and Board of General Officers’ Minutes (WO 71/243), Major Gen-eral Henry Procter, 21 Dec. 1814-28 Jan. 1815 (hereafter Procter Court Martial Proceedings), pp. 323-26. Disgraced, Procter retired to the Isle of Wight. He died in 1822, during a sojourn to Bath, England.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 73 2019-02-05 10:07:01 PM

74 ONTARIO HISTORY

resolved to investigate each of the home-steads mentioned during Procter’s court martial. Some proved relatively easy to situate in the context of southwestern Ontario’s Thames River Valley, and the easiest by far was Ward’s. At the time of the battle, it was the only habitation on the road through the extensive forest known as the Longwoods tract. Subse-quently, George Ward’s grant of land was subdivided into what is still known as the village of Wardsville. Other homesteads

were rather more difficult to locate, and the most challenging of all was a place called Bowles’s.

Given the large quantities of am-munition and ordnance stored there, the Bowles homestead was an impor-tant depot for the British.3 It was also at Bowles’s where two small schoon-ers were scuttled in the Thames River to impede any attempt by the Americans to advance by water. But even with these impressive histori-cal associations, it was soon realized that determining the whereabouts of Bowles’s would be a major chal-lenge. While an extensive literature search produced numerous refer-ences to this mystery spot, none of them were very precise. Some other means of tracking it down was need-ed, specifically a rigorous analysis of the relevant primary sources, which meant going to the early land records of western Upper Canada.

The quest began by consult-ing the patent plans for Chatham

Township, as the northeastern extent of that township was also the head of navi-gation on the Thames River for small lake schooners like those scuttled at Bowles’s. The patent plans, so called for the original patentees, record the names of all those settlers who received grants of land from the Crown (or Upper Canadian govern-ment). The names written over each lot in the broken front along the river were checked in the hope of finding someone with the last name of Bowles. When this

AbstractGeneral Henry Procter’s ignominious retreat at the Battle of Moraviantown in 1813 ruined his reputa-tion. At his court martial, a number of pioneer place names were identified as milestones in his retreat, including a homestead called Bowles’s an important depot for the British where two schooners were scut-tled to prevent the Americans from advancing up the Thames River by boat. This article uses evidence from a variety of original sources to determine the most likely location of Bowles’s homestead and, perhaps, two historic shipwrecks from the War of 1812.

Résumé: Le général Henry Procter a détruit sa re-nommée en 1813 lorsqu’il avait décidé de battre en re-traite à la bataille de Moraviantown. Devant la cour martiale, plusieurs noms de lieux pionniers ont été identifiés en tant qu’étapes importantes lors de sa re-traite, parmi lesquels une propriété au nom de Bowles – un dépôt important pour les forces britanniques où deux goélettes furent sabordées afin d’empêcher les forces Américaines d’avancer sur la rivière Thames en bateaux. Nous exploiterons de nombreuses sources originales afin de retrouver l’emplacement probable de la propriété Bowles et peut-être aussi des deux épaves de la Guerre de 1812.

3 Ibid., 86.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 74 2019-02-05 10:07:01 PM

75a place called bowles’s

search proved fruitless, plans were exam-ined for other townships on the same, or north, bank of the Thames and as far

upstream as the Gore of Zone Township (where the Battle of Moraviantown was fought).4 Once again, the search came up

4 Early land surveyors linked the site of the battlefield to lot 4 in the Gore of Zone Township, Kent County. See: Guy St-Denis, Tecumseh’s Bones (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press,

The arrow in this detail, taken from the Chatham Township plan in Belden’s 1881 Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada, indicates the most likely site of the British depot at James Boyle’s homestead. Courtesy Rare Books and Special Col-lections, McGill University Library.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 75 2019-02-05 10:07:02 PM

76 ONTARIO HISTORY

empty-handed. The results were the same for the south side of the river.

Although a patentee named Bowles did not appear, there was a William Boyle with two grants of land in How-ard Township—one of which (lot 13) fronted on the river.5 Could it be that Bowles’s was really meant to be Boyle’s? It seemed plausible, given the phonetic spelling of many of the names in the min-utes of Procter’s court martial proceed-ings.6 But there was just one problem. William Boyle’s lot in Howard Township was some 33 kilometres upriver from the “forks of the Thames” at McGregor’s Creek (in what is now downtown Chatham, Ontario). Yet, the testimony of several witnesses at Procter’s court martial seemed to suggest that Bowles’s was farther downstream and much closer to the forks.7

Given this disparity, it became im-perative to ascertain if it was really William Boyle’s homestead which was

described as Bowles’s in Procter’s court martial proceedings. Perhaps the War of 1812 Losses Claims might provide the answer. Disappointingly no record of a William Boyle was found. But there was a James Boyle, and this particular Boyle happened to own land on the Thames River in Chatham Township. It consist-ed of lot 11 in the first concession, only eight kilometres above the forks.8 Inter-estingly enough, James Boyle purchased this property from his father—who was none other than William Boyle.9

Although the river at lot 11 in Chatham Township appeared to be too wide and deep for a successful scuttling, there soon came a change of heart. It was prompted by William Shaw, a local jus-tice of the peace. In an affidavit he pre-pared in support of James Boyle’s claim for the loss of a horse during Procter’s re-treat, Shaw wrote the claimant’s name as “Boles.” In noticing his mistake, however, he changed the spelling to “Boyles.”10 Ob-

2005), 176, n. 23.5 William Boyle was also granted lot 12 in the first concession of Howard Township. This lot, how-

ever, was not on the Thames River.6 For example, Procter’s own name frequently appears as Proctor.7 NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, pp. 11, 107, 196.8 Glenn Stott and Carol Hall, Taken and Destroyed: The War of 1812 Losses Claims, London and

Western Districts, Upper Canada (Milton, Ontario: Global Heritage Press, 2011), 14, 46, 73, 112. Accord-ing to a record in the Township Papers, lot 11 in Chatham Township was originally located (or assigned) to Frederick Harboth, but then transferred to Mathew Dolsen and finally William Boyle. See: Archives of Ontario (hereafter AO), Crown Lands Records, Township Papers (RG 1, C-IV), Chatham Township, land board minute, 20 Sep. 1793, p. 47.

9 This purchase took place in 1810. See: AO, Kent County Land Registry Office, Abstract Index Books (RG 61-24), Chatham Township, vol. A, con. I, lot 11, bargain and sale, William Boyle to James Boyle, 8 Jan. 1810, inst. 141. The relationship between James and William Boyle was recorded in the estate file of the latter individual, who died 10 March 1813. See: AO, Essex County Surrogate Court, Estate Files (RG 22-311), William Boyle, 1816, no. 127.

10 Library and Archives Canada (hereafter LAC), Department of Finance, Upper Canada, War of 1812 Losses Claims (RG 19, E5a), vol. 3749, file 2, claim of James Boyle, no. 733, affidavit of Daniel Crow, 5 Oct. 1815.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 76 2019-02-05 10:07:02 PM

77a place called bowles’s

viously, Boyle’s was pronounced Bowles, which explains how it came to be record-ed as such during Procter’s court mar-tial. While this explanation in favour of James Boyle seemed to hold great merit, it still lacked the hard evidence necessary to definitely establish the location of the Bowles’s homestead as lot 11 in Chatham Township. Initially, lot 13 in Howard Township seemed to be a more viable place to obstruct the Thames with scut-tled lake schooners—but the river’s navi-gational limitations above the townsite of modern Chatham put this in doubt. It was unlikely that there was a sufficient depth of water for the schooners to pro-ceed so far upstream.

Another mark against lot 13 was the place where the British crossed from the south to north side of the river, which was below the townsite of Chatham and approximately 38 kilome-tres downstream from William Boyle’s lot in Howard Township.11 The place of crossing provided a tantalizing clue that Bowles’s was on the north side of the riv-er, as the depot would have been on the British line of march. There were other clues pointing to a location in Chatham Township, including that left by an American cavalry officer who partici-pated in the expedition against Procter

and Tecumseh. In a sketch map drawn by Captain Robert B. McAfee, the po-sition of “two boats on fire” is plotted a short distance up from the forks and appears to correspond with Procter’s orders to scuttle the two schooners at Bowles’s.12 The location of these vessels also appears to be in keeping with lot 11, Chatham Township. Additional evi-dence was found in Procter’s court mar-ital proceedings, which placed Bowles’s below Arnold’s Mills.13 These mills were about 22 kilometres above the forks, and it was reassuring to know that this span of the river encompassed lot 11 in Chatham Township. This recognition also tended to rule out lot 13 in How-ard Township, as it was ten kilometres higher up the river from Arnold’s.

The argument for lot 11 in Chatham Township was further strengthened by James Boyle’s wife, Rebecca. In 1811, she petitioned for a grant of Crown land.14 In doing so, she listed herself as being of Chatham Township. There was also a nice find in a miscellaneous series of land records known as the Township Papers, which reinforced the impression that the Boyle family had made their home in Chatham Township from an early date. In January of 1794, land surveyor Patrick McNiff prepared a list of settlers

11 The British troops crossed to the north side of the Thames River at Dolsen’s on lot 19, Dover West Township. The crossing was accomplished using a “flat” or flat-bottomed boat. See: NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 206.

12 “The McAfee Papers,” Register of the Kentucky State Historical Society 26:77 (May 1928), opp. 123; NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 196.

13 NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 206.14 LAC, Upper Canada Land Petitions (RG1, L3), vol. 37, B10 (1804-1823), pt. 1, petition of Re-

becca Boyle, 26 Oct. 1811, no. 46. No similar record could be found for James Boyle.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 77 2019-02-05 10:07:02 PM

78 ONTARIO HISTORY

in the Third (or Howard) Township and the improvements they made to their properties. William Boyle was found to have done nothing to lot 13. Further-more, it was noted that he lived in the Second (or Chatham) Township.15 Such circumstantial evidence was compelling, but it was the land records which finally settled the question against Howard Township.

According to the abstract index, a calendar of registered land transactions, William Boyle sold his grant of lot 13 in Howard Township early in 1811—well before Procter’s retreat in October of 1813.16 This “bargain and sale” thus eliminated any possibility that Bowles’s was in Howard Township, which meant that it was likely to have been James Boyle’s homestead on lot 11 in Chatham Township. A verification might be pos-sible based on the two schooners scut-tled at Bowles’s. After all, it was there that Procter decided to block the river

with the burned-out hulls of the Mary and Ellen.17 According to Captain Webb Crowther of the 41st Regiment, he pro-ceeded to “Bowles’s” on 4 October 1812, and there

found that the Deputy Ass[istan]t Quarter Master General was destroying the stores that had been landed. I then went onboard the two Vessels, and with the assistance of the Naval Officers, we moored the Vessels across the River. I took the entrenching tools and Carpenters tools and sent them off in a boat. I commenced immediately destroying the naval and Ordnance stores that were on-board those two Vessels, breaking them and cutting them and throwing into the River such as would sink. I then gave directions to the master Carpenter to scuttle the two Ves-sels, which was done and on their settling in the water I set fire to the upper works.18

The destruction of the Mary and El-len was nothing, if not thorough. Yet, remnants of both ships might very well survive to this day, buried deep in the mud of the Thames River—and some-

15 AO, Crown Lands Records, Township Papers (RG 1, C-IV), Howard Township, “State of the Im-provements on the different Lots in the Third Township…” by Patrick McNiff, 16 Sep. 1794, pp. 357b-c.

16 William Boyle sold lot 13, Howard Township, to John Julien. See: AO, Kent County Land Regis-try Office, Abstract Index Books (RG 61-24), Howard Township, vol. A, con. I, lot 13, bargain and sale, William Boyle to John Julien, 10 Jan. 1811, inst. 172.

17 Although Captain Webb Crowther identified these schooners as the Mary and Ellenor, the latter vessel is referred to several times as Ellen in the owner’s claim for war losses. See: NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 196; LAC, Department of Finance, Upper Canada, War of 1812 Losses Claims (RG 19, E5a), vol. 3744, file 1, claim of Richard Pattinson, no. 263.

18 NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 196. See also: LAC, Department of Finance, Upper Canada, War of 1812 Losses Claims (RG 19, E5a), vol. 3749, file 2, claim of James Boyle, no. 733, affidavit of Daniel Crow, 5 Oct. 1815. Another account of the scuttling of Mary and Ellen was given in testimony by Captain John Hall of the Canadian Regiment: “I Received Orders from Genl Procter at Bowles’s to direct Captain [George B.] Hall of the Provincial Marines to warp down two vessels to a proper situation in the River, to Lash them together across it, scuttle them, sink them, and Burn them to the Water’s edge. On Returning to Bowles’s, I found that his Orders had not been Obeyed, and reported to the General Ac-cordingly. I proposed performing that Duty and requested the assistance of Captain Crowther, which the Genl acceded to. We had accomplished the sinking and Burning of these Vessels about half after three in the afternoon.” See: NAUK, Procter Court Martial Proceedings, p. 250.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 78 2019-02-05 10:07:02 PM

79a place called bowles’s

where along the frontage of lot 11, Chatham Township.19 If so, their even-

tual discovery will confirm the site of a place called Bowles’s.

19 James Boyle sold this land in 1815. See: AO, Kent County Land Registry Office, Abstract Index Books (RG 61-24), Chatham Township, vol. B, con. I, lot 11, bargain and sale, James Boyle to Charles Fortier, 29 Aug. 1815, inst. 16. It should also be noted that James Boyle died 25 January 1842. His tombstone can still be seen in the Desmond/Farslow/Traxler Cemetery on the Croton Line in Camden Township near Dresden, Ontario, some 16 kilometres north of his former homestead on lot 11, Chatham Township.

OH inside pages spring 2019.indd 79 2019-02-05 10:07:02 PM